"Interesting the reason Ellison is supporting Barack is because he is Muslim...not because he is black." Im not sure that "because he is a unifying spirit" amounts to either of those choices, and it's a shame to speak as if it were. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Exactly. I don't care what the RW does.

"Interesting the reason Ellison is supporting Barack is because he is Muslim...not because he is black." Im not sure that "because he is a unifying spirit" amounts to either of those choices, and it's a shame to speak as if it were. 

That's because it was scathing sarcasm directed at the blatantly biased thread headline title. Which like the article it linked to should have simply stated Congressman Ellison Endorses....

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

The thread title headline is blatantly biased.

No one refers to Feingold or  Lieberman as the JEW Congressman ..let the Mitzvahs begin ...in headlines when they endorse or speak out on issues, do they?  How about the CATHOLIC Kerry or Leahy..let the Communions begin?

You do not even see MORMON Romney...let the Missions begin..in  thread titles on the site.

PC POlICE! FREEZE!
HEADLINE SHOULD READ "Islamic" (not "Muslim"

there that felt good

Keith rules. Im glad to see he is endorsing Obama.

No, I don't think that's what Eric was saying. More that it's so easy nowadays to predict wingnut attack points.

Goode attacks Muslims in general, and focuses on Ellison.

Obama's name rhymes with Osama, and of course Hussein.

Ellison (a Muslim) endorses Obama.

Ergo, according to the wingnuts, Obama must be a Muslim terrorist intent on taking over America, and should be sent to Eastern Europe for rendition.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

i disagree completely.

there are so many people in this country who have simmering racism under the surface, completely apart from the legion of people who wear it on their sleeves with pride.

there are tons of people BEGGING for a reason to exercise that bias, and things like calling Obama 'Osama Obama' and using his middle name, and etc etc, are just such good excuses for doing that.

combined with the fact that there are so many news outlets and employees of those outlets readily willing to take people seriously who operate with this type of rhetoric, and it's a real issue for Obama in his campaign. IMO.

i mean, look at the swift boat campaign. how many people, before 2004, would have dismissed the concept of republicans calling a decorated vietnam vet a coward and traitor in favor of a proven draft dodger, as nothing more than a concept only acceptable during a really bad psychedelic hallucination?

and look what happened with that.

Don't forget there were some who thought they were voting for George H.W. Bush. I doubt the name will be as troublesome as the Corker type smears against Ford in TN (OK, it was the RSCC). He will have the toughest time winning a general, but I still think he'll be able to win easily unless Hagel jumps in, which makes it tougher for everyone.

BTW, it was clear that the headline for the post was satirical and a criticism of the Limbaughs. I don't know how it came to be seen as a subtle attack on Obama. As you mention, many of the attacks are silly.

Kerry handled his response to the swift-boaters very poorly. There is honest disagreement amongst folks about whether or not an African-American can succeed; there is also disagreement amongst folks about whether or not a female can succeed.

IMHO, those with overt or covert racism spinning around in them aren't Democrats to begin with. They either won't vote or they'll vote GOP. I would prefer that they not vote but I cannot control that.

Thanks. That the far left hates Obama is just one more reason to like him.

Ellison should someday run for president. His issue is college funding and school education and he has done a very good here in MN.

his endorsement has gone to the right person.

Seems to me Eric was trying to point Ellison to the back of the bus. Ellison is my Congressman and he represents me. I don't like being shoved to the back of the bus either. If Republicans want to do propaganda let us fight them not in Third Way DLC style merely join them.

I think you've misunderstood the headline. I believe the author meant that the attacks would be coming from rightwingers, who already have Ellison in their sights, rather than as a statement about what Muslims do.

There's no hiding it, Ellison is Muslim. Otherwise he's about as scary as Bill Cosby. Which is a good thing. Remember when Kucinich made a point of introducing him to the wingnut Goode? His using Thomas Jefferson's Quran to be sworn in? Chalk up a big one for the forces of tolerance and Democrats in that episode. Relax WRB, that's snark you're reading. Let's hope the crazies like Goode take the bait. Again.

Jan

I rated the posts low from posters who rated my post low due to their disagreement.vs. valid substance. I believe turnaround is fair play. As you are aware, I generally do not do that. If posters believe they can rate a post low, without providing a rebuttal, then they also will receive a low rating without reason in return.

I think that is fair.

I think you've misunderstood the headline. I believe the author meant that the attacks would be coming from rightwingers, who already have Ellison in their sights, rather than as a statement about what Muslims do.

I disagree. I think you've misunderstood the headline. I believe that the author singled out Ellison on the basis of his being Muslim and attempted to LINK him with Obama to fan the scrurrilous right wing mantra of Obama having attended a  'extremist'Madrassa.

NOTE, the article that the thread links to does NOT mention that Ellison is a Muslim in the headline.

There has been considerable controversy surrounding Ellison being Muslim as well as Obama. The title of the thread simply engages in the same inflammatory bigotry that the rightwing and Fox news are trying to sear into the public minds over 'islamofacists'.

Despite Obama being Christian, the author links him with Ellison based on Ellisons Muslim faith. Black, male, muslim...the visual image and message are clearly bigotted.

With that headline title, the author is attacking, Congressman Ellison and Senator Obama.  No need for the right wing to do a darn thing. The author has already bought into the meme and is now perpetuating it himself.

The day I see a headline on this site that says JEW Congressmen and it links to an article on Lieberman, Feingold, Feinstein etc  I will reconsider. Until then, we can agree to disagree.

I can certainly see where you're coming from, with regards to a lot of the race/religion issues floating around. I must admit, my first reaction to Eric's piece was, "Well, heck, why not just tell the GOP everything that's wrong with our candidates!"

However, the more I mulled it over, the more I realized it's extremely important to become aware of potential GOP smear points. If the old adage of "the best defense is a good offense," then I'd have to believe that "it's even better to know the enemy's playbook."

To me, it seems like Democrats, historically, have been absolutely horrid at countering or coming up with decent responses to pointless GOP attack smears. Kerry's swiftboating? Ford's race? Ellison's religion (ok, Ellison did pretty darn good against Goode), Kerry's botched high school grades joke, Edwards' two "obscene" bloggers? Heck, we can even go back as far as Max Cleland, and beyond.

And, from what I read on political blogs, almost everyone has an opinion on how politicians should have reacted better.

The point is, the GOP will always find something with which to attack Dems. Even if they have to make something up (Pelosi's plane).

I think it's better that we get a little cynical and start thinking of ways to counter, methods to make these non-issues into non-issues, ways to turn these attacks back onto the GOP. Could Eric have written the post differently? Probably; I can certainly think of a few tweaks to make it more biting, yet obvious. Does that mean Eric's intent was wrong? I don't think so.

[Edit] I'd like to clarify something. I realized when I wrote "'Well, heck, why not just tell the GOP everything that's wrong with our candidates!'" that it might indicate I feel Ellison's being a Muslim, or black, or an outspoken critic is wrong. That's the furthest from the truth. What I meant by "wrong" was anything that could be fodder for GOP smear attacks (what the GOP would think is wrong with our candidates).

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

I agree with wheelchairQB and jcluchey. You've misunderstood the headline completely. Read what else Eric has written. He's not a right-winger. He's merely anticipating (correctly, I would surmise) what right-wingers will probably do with this tidbit.

It's not wrong to be black. It's not wrong to be a Muslim. It's not wrong to be born to a multi-cultural or multi-racial background. It's not wrong to be comfortable with Africans and Asians.

You're absolutely right. No one here is claiming otherwise, however.

The instant you let your opponent believe you've bought into their own bigotry and smears, you've lost the argument.

There's a big difference between anticipating what your opponent is going to say and letting them believe you've bought into it. All Eric was saying is that right-wingers are predictable. Do you dispute that?

I can see how it can be read as a snark. I also see the really really negative association that WRB is pointing out. Typically, politicians who are catholic or jewish are not subjected to this type of religious intolerance. When you add on the racial stereotypes the headline can be read quite differently from being simply a snark.

You've made good points here, but I do not feel that these points were adequately expressed in your original post, nor several that followed. It sounded like you were actually accusing Eric of being a right-winger and biased against Muslims, which was definitely not his intent.

Your point (if I understand it correctly now) is that such anticipation helps our opponents more than it helps us. I believe it is a valid point, and I believe a correct one. However, this is not what it sounded like you were trying to say. I apologize for not understanding your original intention, but I think you could have said it in a much clearer (and less inflammatory) fashion.

I think you could have said it in a much clearer (and less inflammatory) fashion.

Probably so. I was as inflammatory as I believe the thread title was. My hope was  to underscore the inflammatory nature of the title expressed as an equally inflammatory opposing view. Guess, I need reconsider that approach, next time. lol

You're acting like a right winger yourself; misinterpreting what is said then attacking your manufactured misinterpretation. One of the right's favorite tactics.

False. My interpretation was not manufactured nor a misinterpretation.

Then how do you explain so many posts disagreeing with your "interpretation"? You seem to be in a distinct minority.

O my. Surely you are not one of those individuals who believe that popularity or being in the majority determines whether something is valid or invalid, are you?

The number of posts which disagree with how I 'interpretate' the title simply means that they disagree. It does not make my interpetation any more or less valid. That is why it is an interpretation.

Thinking individuals who engage with people of diverse backgrounds, multiple cultures and across SES groups  know that how people interpret and percieve situations, events, and data is very much dependent on their personal experiences. That is what is called diversity of opinion. Obviously, my personal experiences are different from many of those with posts that disagree. Nevertheless, it is just as valid.

The 'moral majority' was also quite popular at one time. Many agreed with that phrase. Whereas, I beleived the moral majority was neither. It did not matter how many folks disagreed with my view as it was as valid as those who believed there was a moral majority.

You found an enormous number of hits on this site where the thread title says Jew Congressman, Catholic Congressman or Mormon Governor? Flat out unbelievable.

You obviously didn't do the search as I did. If you did you would have found "CatholicKerry Watch.com" among others.
"Mormon Romney" at Conservativevoice.com, among others, and
"Jew Cogressman Emanuel Celler" at wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
among others.

I bet your friends describe you as being not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

WOW, that is absolutely profound, I can't top that!

I fought those SOBs in Europe; Goode and those like him bring back memories of those times.

THIS site wasn't his point. It was just yours. I understood what he was saying all along. You ignored his words because you had your own agenda. If the idea you're talking about is limited to TPM, what is the problem anyway? We all KNOW that the descrimination you are talking about isn't a problem.

Jan Knaus

On February 21, 2007 - 1:42pm whiterosebuddy said: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

The thread title headline is blatantly biased.

No one refers to Feingold or Lieberman as the JEW Congressman ..let the Mitzvahs begin ...in headlines when they endorse or speak out on issues, do they? How about the CATHOLIC Kerry or Leahy..let the Communions begin?

You do not even see MORMON Romney...let the Missions begin..in thread titles on the site.

There's your post, the post I inarguably quoted. You say "no one refers......", you say "in headlines when they...", nowhere are you specific to this site.

I stated more than once to search THIS site for a thread title.

Can you quote these statements? I searched and missed them.

I expect any quotes as examples to be PRIOR to your "...more than once" post.

THIS site wasn't his point.

He does not get to shift the focus of the disagreement to what he wants when rebutting my specific statements. Since this site was my point, his point is irrelevant and off topic..

It was just yours

Well, I was the one he was quoting when he made his rebuttal. So he needs to stick with just my point, instead of trying to broaden it to something entirely different from what I asserted.

I understood what he was saying all along

Yeah? and?  I understood what he was saying as well.

 You ignored his words because you had your own agenda.

There was no agenda. It is really straight forward.. I respond to remarks that address the point he attempted to rebut. I have no need to respond to an issue he chooses to create by misconstruing and extrapolating the  statements.

It simply was not what I had stated, therefore it did not merit acknowledgment. I stayed focus even if he wasn't.  What he basically was doing was misconstruing and extrapolating my specific point to an all inclusive universe. Totally missing my point. No need for me to miss it with him.

 If the idea you're talking about is limited to TPM, what is the problem anyway?

There are several prior posts, which provide a detailed response to this query.

We all KNOW that the descrimination you are talking about isn't a problem.

Do we?  Perhaps, you know that.  I presume to KNOW no such thing.

I addressed the issue as I saw it.  I certainly do not see all the anti-semitism that many other posters raise on other threads and many of those posters  do not presume to think that discrimination is not a problem.

I read the last 6 words in the post. Now lets go back to my request; You said; "I stated more than once to search THIS site for a thread title."

My request was "Can you quote THESE statements, I searched and missed them."